"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

Dr. MB Medaera has been training with me consistently since April 8, 2008. In slightly more than 1-1/2 years, I've put him through 101 supervised workouts. That's 101 workouts in 79 weeks, or 1.28 workouts per week.

For a man who has a demanding job (he's a neurosurgeon) and four kids at home, he's made significant progress.

His body weight has dropped from 196 to 176 pounds and his percentage of body fat has gone from 24.4 to 9.7. Overall, MB has dropped 31.7 pounds of fat and built 11.7 pounds of muscle. Plus, he's lost 4-1/4 inches off his waist.

Before with 48.8 lbs of fat.

After with 17.1 lbs of fat.

In my opinion, MB is in tiptop shape for being 46 years of age.

Here's an example of his workout on October 25, 2009 . . .

1. Nautilus Nitro Leg Curl: 130/8

2. Nautilus Nitro Leg Press: 460/12

3. Nautilus Multi-Exercise Calf Raise: 290/12

4. Nautilus Nitro Pullover: 215/8

5. Nautilus Nitro Rowing: 200/12

6. Nautilus Nitro Vertical Press: 230/8

7. Nautilus Multi-Exercise Stiff-Legged Deadlift: 290/13

8. Ab Coaster Leg Raise: 10/15

He went through those eight exercises, including the time between them, in 16 minutes and 15 seconds . . . an indication that he's in excellent cardio-respiratory condition.

Great job, MB. May you continue to appreciate the power of proper strength training.

Alex Bender from Ottawa, CANADA here. If you recall, you came to do a Nautilus presentation some years ago at the RA centre where I used to work out. Anyway, you mention that Dr. Medaera has a hectic schedule. Currently, I am working shiftwork (8-6pm days; 6-4am afts) with the local constabulary and raising 3 young kids, making it extremely difficult to follow a fat loss plan. For example, I'll follow the program during the day, no problem. But when I have to stay up until 4am with no food, it's a killer...I had much success over 2 years ago following 32/32 going from 218lbs to an absolute low of 188 in under a month. Mind you, I paid for it - I was cycling as well as working out so I think I lost it too quickly. Muscle mass suffered. Anyway, I'm back up to 200lbs and would like to get back down to the 190 range. I find the shiftwork makes it very difficult to follow 32/32 and was wondering if you could make any suggestions as to how to make it a little easier.

I have no problem with the workouts...they are a little less productive than when I did my one on one with you, but I'm still in the best shape of my life at 41 years.

Thanks for your response. I'm just looking for some added clarification on the planning aspect of caloric intake while working my shifts.

This past Monday I woke at 7am. I was up all day, catching a few winks in the afternoon before heading in for work at 845pm. My shift ended the next morning at 730am. So essentially, I am up for over 24hrs while following a diet that allows for approx. 1300 calories.

This is an awfully long time to be awake, including in that time, a workout and only eating 1300 calories or so.

While this particular day is an exception more than the rule, there are several days where I am awake for these prolonged periods and only consuming this amount of food.

I enjoy reading the Intensive Training Success stories. Many of the individuals,although out of shape at the beginning of the traininig usuallly achieve some pretty remarkable results.

However, many seem to have good genetical potential to begin with, they just need a good program and nutrition guidelines to achieve their goals. I have seen you rate someone's potential on a scale of 1-10 with 5 being average. Most of the individuals seem to be on the mid to upper end(6-8). I would be interested in seeing what kind of progress can be made with someone of less than average potential. I was wondering if you might have any case studies or examples you might be able to share.

"genetic potential" is a load of bs and used as an excuse for being lazy in training and or diet. Skinny to Big click here: http://teamripped.com/...tin-builds-mass fat to ripped, click here: http://www.mixedfitness.com/...cials-realistic average to ripped here: http://www.flickr.com/...ane/1454035342/ 40 year old average person working sixty hours a week to ripped right here: http://www.bowflexhomegyms.com/...cessstories.jsp bottom line- hard work makes good before and after pictures no matter what program you do, if you achieve beyond average results, which comes from beyond average hard work NOT beyond average genetics, then those results will show. I've gone from "out of shape" to below 10% body fat a few times over the past 8 years or so and I've done it different ways each time. I did the body for life program with fantastic results, i did my own version of a total body "hit" routine 1 set to failure before i even knew what it was with a very low calorie diet. I had fantastic results using the p90x program, and I've added quite a bit of mass using Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty routine, as well as total body hit. Hard work works, no matter what the program, volume, hit, something in the middle. Do some work better with less time investment? Sure, I was doing p90x over 1 hour a day six days a week, while body for life was 3 20min cardio sessions and 3 45 min weight training sessions per week. Even less still was the total body routine about 20-30 min 3 times a week, down to heavy duty being 20 min every 2-4 or more days. Search the internet there are hundreds and hundreds of body transformations, from p90x to body building . com to muscle and strength . com , cross fit, body for life. They are everywhere, and they all have 2 things in common, they all worked hard and they all had amazing results, nobody hid behind so called "genetic potential"

Ciccio wrote:
They show that you're very bad (and/or biased?) in spotting potential.
They also show only (relatively) young guys and that some of them might have had some "help".

He's also making the HUGE and foolish assumption that those pictures are 'real'. Very few before and after galleries are legit. There's too much product to be sold and too much money to be made. This old hustle has been going for decades and people still buy into it as solid proof!

Is it important to work hard? Yes. But that is not a guarantee for great results. Look at the Ted Tucker results found here. He lost weight and got into shape but he is by no means impressive physically. It might take him 5-10 years of hard work and he still might have a very average genetic finish line. Whereas his next door neighbor might have slightly better genetics and get wonderful results in 3-5 years. This is not something you can 'eyeball' by looking at pictures.

I'll take this further. Genetic potential is not a myth. It's proven science as Dr. Darden knows and has lectured on. I'm a personal trainer for over 25 years and I have trained every manner of genetic type and people ARE limited. Period. Some people cannot grow calves regardless of effort or program. Some have naturally responsive pecs and glutes no matter how much or little they do. POW! Great results.

Do other programs work? Yes, they can IF the person doing them remains dedicated. But here are the real questions to ask -
A - is it efficient?
B - can this be done safely for many, many years?
C - is it practical?
D - are a majority of people still doing it after 3-6 months? A year?

P90X is an excellent example of hype marketing that gets a big fat NO to every single question above. In fact P90X and Shaun T's similar program both started off as 90 minute programs to be performed 4-5 days per week. Their customers and market complained it was too much, so Shaun dropped his down to 60 minutes and P90X followed...probably forced to do so to maintain revenue. Now they have both evolved down to 25 minute programs.

Strange though, because when they came out as 90 minute HYPE routines, they were touted as being the best and most perfect routines possible after years of experience and research and blah blah blah. No studies were ever sourced though to prove those claims. This begs the question, if they were so perfectly designed and effective why did they fail? We all know the answers to this question. Worse still, Shaun T. now sells dance videos as ways to 'get ripped' and get you 'into the best shape of your life'. Uh huh...sure. I doubt it has anything to do with just hustling product to make gobs of money right?

Dr Darden,
I have seen Drew Baye mention that performance improvements during the first 6 to 8 weeks of a new program are primarily due to increase in skill and neuro adaptation. Following the first 6 to 8 week period, performance improvements are based mostly on the increase of actual size and strength; therefore the program itself should remain relatively unchanged for best possible results. I can see the logic in this, but would like to know your thoughts on this?

would an alternating routine have a negative effect on the developmental period? Also, because negative accentuated strength training in still new to many of us can we expect a book on how it applies to bodybuilding?